Maxwell "Mike" Blackmon v. Randy Brock

SC-2025-0422 (Ala. June 12, 2026) · Supreme Court of Alabama · June 12, 2026 · No. SC-2025-0422

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court reviews Maxwell "Mike" Blackmon's challenge to the 2022 Conecuh County sheriff's election, which Randy Brock won by two votes after a recount. Blackmon argued that three absentee ballots and two election-day ballots were illegal and that one vote for him was improperly omitted. The opinion addresses the trial court's factual findings, preservation of appellate arguments, ballot validity, and the timeliness of evidentiary objections.

Holdings

  1. The mere passage of time is not a valid basis for denying or affirming denial of an election contest when the contestant otherwise proves entitlement to relief under Ala. Code § 17-16-59.
  2. The trial court did not err in refusing to exclude the challenged absentee ballots because its credibility and factual findings concerning the ballots were supported by the evidence, and one of Blackmon's arguments was not preserved.
  3. Blackmon waived his challenge to the exhibit because he did not object when Brock offered it into evidence.
  4. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the visually impaired voter's vote for Blackmon had been included in the recount.
  5. The two logo ballots could not be counted as votes for Brock because, considering each ballot as a whole, it was impossible to determine that the voters intended to cast straight-party Democratic votes.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court's concern about the approximately two-and-one-half-year delay in resolving the election contest supplied an independent basis to affirm the judgment.
  2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to exclude three absentee ballots cast for Brock.
  3. Whether Blackmon preserved his challenge to the admission of the canvassing board's precinct-by-precinct recount certification.
  4. Whether the trial court erred in finding that a vote for Blackmon from a visually impaired voter had been counted in the recount.
  5. Whether the two ballots marked over the Democratic Party logo, rather than in the designated party oval, clearly indicated an intent to cast straight-party votes for Brock under Alabama law.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (30)

  • Soutullo v. Mobile Cnty., 58 So. 3d 733 (Ala. 2010)(distinguished)
  • Murey v. City of Chickasaw, 385 So. 3d 903 (Ala. 2023)(followed)
  • Gunaji v. Macias, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008 (2001)(followed)
  • Nunley v. Abernathy, 622 So. 2d 922 (Ala. 1993)(followed)
  • Williams v. Lide, 628 So. 2d 531 (Ala. 1993)(followed)
  • Wells v. Ellis, 551 So. 2d 382 (Ala. 1989)(followed)
  • Wiggins v. Mallard, 905 So. 2d 776 (Ala. 2005)(followed)
  • Ex parte Loggins, 771 So. 2d 1093 (Ala. 2000)(followed)
  • Eubanks v. Hale, 752 So. 2d 1113 (Ala. 2000)(followed)
  • Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403 (Ala. 2010)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 30.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…